LOL.
Can't trust the people we are supposed to trust most with their guns. "Just an honest mistake!"
LOL.
when Derek Chauvin inevitably walks ...
- Thread starter _glaciers
- Start date
Can't trust the people we are supposed to trust most with their guns. "Just an honest mistake!"
LOL.
Is this what happens when you run capable police officers away and replace them with ones that really aren't qualified to do the job?
Given that we witnessed a cop in Virginia PEPPER SPRAY an Army officer IN UNIFORM with -- get this -- BOTH HIS HANDS IN THE AIR in a non-threatening pose -- for not getting out of his vehicle when two hyped-up, gun pointing officers demanded he do so, I'm thinking that's not a particularly good argument to be making given the timing.
Non-sequitor. One has nothing to do with the other.Given that we witnessed a cop in Virginia PEPPER SPRAY an Army officer IN UNIFORM with -- get this -- BOTH HIS HANDS IN THE AIR in a non-threatening pose -- for not getting out of his vehicle when two hyped-up, gun pointing officers demanded he do so, I'm thinking that's not a particularly good argument to be making given the timing.
A squadmate of my wife’s, after six years of service, accidentally pulled her taser instead of her firearm as they were responding to a domestic 911 hang up. Most of the officers that I know wear them on opposite sides of their belts but shit happens sometimes when they are in high stimulus environments and shit goes sideways.
Also, yes, this is more likely to happen when you run good police out and have to hire what’s left.
If you're going to make a mistake, it seems to me, that's the direction to make one.
It’s certainly the less lethal one for the person that was beating the hell out of his wife. Of course, since I’d rather see my wife and her squad mates come home in the morning if the criminal tried to employ a deadly weapon, I’d rather her pull her gun.
We are so hell bent on humanizing vicious criminals in society that we’ve dehumanized the few among us that are willing to go out and deal with them.
Because you don’t see what it looks like when the criminals commit their crimes on the evening news, most have no idea just how violent people and dangerous criminals can be. I wish the news would cover all the horrible things that our police have to deal with on a regular basis, just so that it’s all put into real context. I’d love to see the body cams of our police shown every night of the vile hatred they get for arresting people for damn near anything, even the most terrible of crimes.
JMO, but I think the defense witnesses so far have only moved the needle slightly. They proved that Floyd was falling asleep in the car, which goes to the OD narrative but the prosecution did a really good job of dismissing it by saying he might have just been tired. The witnesses on the prior arrest were just a big nothing-burger.
The "spark of life" rule is very interesting. Normally that occurs at sentencing. Not sure why they do it during the trial.
I agree although I don't think that these witnesses were supposed to move the needle. They're just laying a foundation for the experts to come. Chang established that the crowd was actually hostile and concerning to him. This is counter to the prosecution acting like the crowd didn't exist. McKenzie established that Floyd was exhibiting symptoms of excited delirium according to training and it was reasonable for them to assess.
I'm surprised that Nelson left Frank's last cross question on the table: "Acronym, NOTACRIME. Would you defer to an Emergency Room doctor on whether someone experiencing ED?" I would think that he'd want to ask (1) if she knew if there was a doctor on site that they could defer to in the crucible of the moment and (2) would it be a reasonable expectation for them to assess differently that a ER doctor reviewing with hidsight.
They do it to humanize the victim. The original doctrine came about in Minny in response to a defense appeal that the prosecution in a case where a slain police officer supposedly prejudiced the jury by giving an emotional speech about him.
Seems to me, the doctrine is especially applicable when it comes to a minority victim because, believe it or not, some folks actually opine the killing was somehow justified.
Explain that pearl of wisdom of yours to U.S. Army second lieutenant Caron Nazario.
Traffic Stop of Black Army Officer
I'm curious if this Virginia traffic stop is one where we can all agree the cops' behavior was disgusting and absolutely unacceptable...
ucf.forums.rivals.com
It seems to me that if you are going to allow one side to create a bias for the jury, both sides should be able to do it. If the prosecution is allowed to have a witness talk about how wonderful of a person that Floyd was, the defense should also be allowed to call a witness that testifies that Floyd beat her up or pointed a gun at her.
These kinds of testimony should be reserved for after the verdict when sentencing happens.
To what end? He deserved to die?
The doctrine exists, not to put the victim on trial, but simply to remind the jury that a human life was taken.
I agree with that. It's not fair that the victim can be humanized without context pre-deliberations. I suppose they can challenge on cross, but they're limited in scope to what the direct testimony is. Seems patently unfair.
Again, what is unfair? What would the defense be arguing? That George Floyd was a bad guy who deserved to die?
Just to the end of ensuring a fair trial. Imagine a scenario where the judge allowed witnesses to testify about Floyd's former crimes (which would actually be more applicable to the trial) and not allow a family member to testify about how he was a good person. There would be outrage, and rightfully so.
Crumps tactics today in Minneapolis are creating a pretty big issue if the defense appeals a guilty charge. The judge may end up regretting not sequestering the jury. But he'll make his 2 or 3 million out of the settlement again so why would he care?
You're right but it's not that simple. In a perfect world, everyone would submit, have their day in court, and go free if innocent.
Unfortunately, in this real world, they're being bombarded with assertions that the criminal justice system is systemically racist and they will never get a fair shake in a court-of-law. Because of this, it changes the place of contention from the courtroom to the street. The courtroom is nice and safe and has a ton of rules to ensure fairness. The street is quite a bit different. As such, the risk incurred when someone tries to argue or fight for their freedom and avoid the system is very much higher on the street.
The fix is systemic and includes all actors, the judicial system, the police, and the community. You can't change just one and fix the problem. Sadly, that is what we try to do most of the time.
You've got to hand it to BLM, they are aware enough to want to change two of those variables. But they're doing it in a way that the third doesn't have to change. The problem is that the way that they want to do it is to accept some level of criminal action as normal, decriminalize it, and thus erode individual and property rights in the process. But they have the podium at the moment so their views are becoming more accepted.
Nelson has been laying the groundwork for an appeal. You can see the statements surrounding the Chang video's limitations.
OK, we've got a pretty good defense witness now. He's making a really good case for how it's important to not look at the situation in hindsight or from a 3rd party position, but that you have to try to put yourself in the officers shoes at the time. That is probably going to resonate with the jury.
This defense use-of-force expert is a much better witness than all of the police officers the state called to answer the same questions. His analysis is logical, supported by easily understood factors, doesn't rely on ignoring variables, and follows the actual procedures that police are taught (aligns perfectly with the things that I know officers are taught here). He also said that he teaches that all resisters go to the prone position on the ground.
"Nelson: Why take resisting actively resisting officer to ground?
Yes. Officers trained safer for officer and suspect to be face down on the ground. Diminishes their mobility, takes away some use of their hands, limits what they can do with their feet, but not as much mobility or power as if standing.
Nelson: Floyd handcuffed at this point, come into analysis of prone?
No, any resister handcuffed or not should go to ground in prone control position."
And that keeping him in prone was reasonable at the time the decision was made due to the expected response time of EMS:
"Nelson: Factor that EMS called?
Fire station a minute or minute and aa half away, so if restrained and know EMS can get there be a much better job than police, let's hold him, stabilize the situation, wait for the professionals to show up.
Nelson: Based on reasonable officer, EMS response time is a factor?
Yes."
Also about why prone restraint is safer for drug-involved suspect:
"Nelson: Safety reasons to keep suspected durg intox in prone.
Not feeling pain, super human strength, safer for officer and suspect to keep them in prone control.
Why safe for suspect.
If run with handcuffs, fall, strike face on ground.
What if they became sick, instead of on back where could aspirate on vomit, airway down, so if vomit not down trachea or throat."
What I got from Brodd was a well thought out and logical progression of the analysis of reasonableness that included everything and was easy to understand and then a final pronouncement of reasonable. The state's witnesses stated their opinion first and then proceeded to try to guess the defense's questions and answer them first. What it then feels like (what it actually was) is they all pre-judged based on the video and then made their process justify their pre-judgement. It may be my bias showing but this witness felt different.
Even under cross, he's been a very objective witness. There's no bias in his testimony at all.
Schleiter's doing a decent job on cross re-affirming the vague concept that Chauvin's weight was somewhere on the body and that positional asphyxia is a thing. Schleiter is still trying to eliminate the crowd from the equation asking a question like "if he threatens you that doesn't justify force against me." The is a supreme oversimplification of the context so much as to be irrelevant. The actual situation was, if you have someone who was and could be a threat in a restrained position and then you are threatened again by a hostile crowd, are you likely to change the force use already in place on the restrained suspect?
The prosecution might be pushing this a little bit too far. They know he's a defense witness so there is a reason he's been brought in. The more they ask him about details, the more they risk getting an answer they don't want. It might be better to just put this to a close.
Brodd has been an absolute disaster for the defense on cross. I'm guessing this is their only use-of-force expert and this is going to be a hard hurdle to get over. He's far too amenable to speculation and has allowed the prosecution to separate all of the different things going on as if they aren't cumulative and express an opinion on each one. He's also allowed the prosecution to take apart his assumptions in a way the defense never did with the state's experts. I think, looking back on this, Brodd is going to wonder what the hell just happened.
Agree 100%. When did this prosecutor become a good lawyer?. Shit is going south for the defense in a big way right now.
wow he sucked on cross
this case comes down to two pieces?
1. was force excessive? Prosecution did a good job proving this and defense witness didn’t hold. Even his own officer said should we turn him over? I think this is not a question
2. Did the excessive force lead to death? This is where they have a shot. So many variables here but dr said he wouldn’t have died that day if not for police interaction. Probably true but only takes one juror
Take legal system out - does anyone actually think this cop isn’t an awful human? Get called to a counterfeit bill call and this is what you do? If he took him down and got him on his side and checked for breathing he’s not on trial. It’s the crowd and own cops saying this guy isn’t moving or breathing and he just doesn’t give a shit.
this case comes down to two pieces?
1. was force excessive? Prosecution did a good job proving this and defense witness didn’t hold. Even his own officer said should we turn him over? I think this is not a question
2. Did the excessive force lead to death? This is where they have a shot. So many variables here but dr said he wouldn’t have died that day if not for police interaction. Probably true but only takes one juror
Take legal system out - does anyone actually think this cop isn’t an awful human? Get called to a counterfeit bill call and this is what you do? If he took him down and got him on his side and checked for breathing he’s not on trial. It’s the crowd and own cops saying this guy isn’t moving or breathing and he just doesn’t give a shit.
Not going to totally disagree, but Chauvin wasn't called in for a fake bill. He showed up because the initial officers called for backup, and all he knew was that they had a guy that was resisting arrest. Yes, he definitely seems pretty cold hearted, but this whole narrative about how he was the aggressor and wanted to kill some random innocent black guy is kind of ridiculous.
I'm not attributing that to your comment specifically, so please don't take offense to it.
Lol. It's pretty obvious why the defense chose this guy as their pathology witness. Having an English accent makes you immediately sound smarter.
Similar threads
